Joined: 12 Apr 2003Posts: 3079Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:56 am Post subject: Words

This is an experiment I wrote in 2002 that I have been running ever since then. At the time, I was experiencing being told by white people to stop using the words “racism (white supremacy)“ together and was even threatened by some white people that if I didn't stop using the words “racism (white supremacy)“ together they would harm me...right then.

Observed Phenomenon:

Words are primarily used for the purpose of communication...meaning getting an understanding (meaning) of what someone is trying to convey to you and giving an understanding (meaning) of what you want to convey to someone else. The white people who practice racism (white supremacy) use words to get the people they classify as non-white to say and/or do certain things.

Hypothesis:

Based on the observation I suspect that when words are arranged a certain way the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) will have great difficulty using those words arranged in that manner to have the same effect on the actions of people they classify as non-white.

Experiment:

Use words arranged in different ways in your communication with white people and non-white people to see what the effect will be.

Recording Data:

Use whatever recording device you can such as pencil and paper, audio recorder, video recorder, memory, etc., to make sure the conversations are recorded.

Expected Results:

(1) When people do not understand the words you are using they will ask you what the word means or tell you they don't understand what the words mean.

(2) White people will ask you to not use certain words arranged in a certain way._________________What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?

Last edited by Edward Williams on Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:26 am; edited 1 time in total

Joined: 12 Apr 2003Posts: 3079Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: Re: Words

Edward Williams wrote:

This is an experiment I wrote in 2002 that I have been running ever since then. At the time, I was experiencing being told by white people to stop using the words “racism (white supremacy)“ together and was even threatened by some white people that if I didn't stop using the words “racism (white supremacy)“ together they would harm me...right then.

Observed Phenomenon:

Words are primarily used for the purpose of communication...meaning getting an understanding (meaning) of what someone is trying to convey to you and giving an understanding (meaning) of what you want to convey to someone else. The white people who practice racism (white supremacy) use words to get the people they classify as non-white to say and/or do certain things.

Hypothesis:

Based on the observation I suspect that when words are arranged a certain way the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) will have great difficulty using those words arranged in that manner to have the same effect on the actions of people they classify as non-white.

Experiment:

Use words arranged in different ways in your communication with white people and non-white people to see what the effect will be.

Recording Data:

Use whatever recording device you can such as pencil and paper, audio recorder, video recorder, memory, etc., to make sure the conversations are recorded.

Expected Results:

(1) When people do not understand the words you are using they will ask you what the word means.

(2) White people will ask you to not use certain words arranged in a certain way.

There are many instances of this experiment being run but here is one I came across recently on Wikipedia. Wikipedia currently no longer provides the link to the person who stated WHY they removed the Counter-Racism Science entries but below is another website that webcrawls Wikipedia and stores the information.

This is what was stated by Spylab:

Quote:

Strange "Counter-Racism Science"?title=paragraph
I have deleted the so-called "Counter-Racism Science"?title=paragraph because it is uncited original research and is written so poorly that it doesn't make sense in the English language. Even the term "Counter-Racism Science"?title=doesn't seem to make any sense, and the content in the paragraph has nothing to do with science. Here is the text I deleted
The Counter-Racism Science definition of racism is that racism is the scientific practice of unjust subjugation, misuse, and/or abuse of persons classified as "non-white", by persons classified as "white", on the basis of color or non-color, and/or, on the basis of factors "associated with"?title=color or non-color. It goes further to note that Racism and White Supremacy are the same and that it is incorrect to use the term "White Racism". To use this term is to imply that Racism exists in a form other than White Supremacy.
I'm really not sure what this paragraph is trying to say, and what it is based on. Spylab 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the so-called "Counter-Racism Science"?title=paragraph because it is uncited original research and is written so poorly that it doesn't make sense in the English language. Even the term "Counter-Racism Science"?title=doesn't seem to make any sense, and the content in the paragraph has nothing to do with science.

Meaning when those words are used arranged in that manner the effect will not be the same._________________What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?

I was experiencing being told by white people to stop using the words “racism (white supremacy)“ together and was even threatened by some white people that if I didn't stop using the words “racism (white supremacy)“ together they would harm me...right then.

Have you had the experience of using the term racism white supremacy and having a white person ask you what you mean by it?

Or is a white persons request that you stop using it, proof that they understand what it means?

Joined: 12 Apr 2003Posts: 3079Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: Re:

Josh wrote:

I was experiencing being told by white people to stop using the words “racism (white supremacy)“ together and was even threatened by some white people that if I didn't stop using the words “racism (white supremacy)“ together they would harm me...right then.

Have you had the experience of using the term racism white supremacy and having a white person ask you what you mean by it?

Yes, when they just want to find something they can use to discredit me with. The white people who practice racism (white supremacy) only want to discredit me by proving my worthlessness in front of other non-white people. The white people who practice racism (white supremacy) never want to discredit me by proving my worthlessness in front of other white people and this is evidence of how many white people practice racism (white supremacy). No need to prove a non-white person is worthless to other white people if you are a white person.

White people will ask me what I mean by "racism (white supremacy)" and when I explain exactly what the definition is those same white people then get the non-white people to believe that I am a "racist", whatever that means. They attempt to make it appear as thought they are not a racist (white supremacist) by making it appear, to non-white people, that I'm a racist (black supremacist). According to logic there can only be one supremacy among people in the universe at a time. So when the white people get non-white people to believe I am a racist (black supremacist) they cannot possibly be a racist (white supremacist).

Josh wrote:

Or is a white persons request that you stop using it, proof that they understand what it means?

Josh

I don't know. It could be. But I don't even focus on that. This experiment led me to perform another experiment that I will post tomorrow that deals with arranging words by changing the definitions of the words._________________What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?

Joined: 12 Apr 2003Posts: 3079Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:24 am Post subject:

Here is the conversation I've been having with Chris at Wikipedia. Additional evidence of how arranging words in a certain order will confuse people. Some non-white people do this even today and view it as being a "coded message". It is not the words themselves that really matter but what the words mean that allow for their arrangement and this is the "next step" for the non-white people who use the "coded message" strategy to use...when they understand what they are looking at.

Quote:

Counter-Racism Science
You're running up against one of the things about Wikipedia that surprises (and disappoints!) many people: Wikipedia does not try to tell the truth, it only tries to report what verifiable, authoritative sources say, in a neutral way, avoiding "original research". For more details, see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia.

In particular, that means we basically need links to articles about Counter-Racism Science in well-known newspapers and/or news magazines. (By the way, do you mean the people at "http://www.counter-racism.com/"?)

If you want to reply to this message, just edit this page and I'll see it next time I check my "watchlist". Cheers, CWC(talk) 07:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward Williams Writes: What person is an "authoritative source"?

Basically, someone whose work is reliable because it gets checked carefully by other people, or at least is supposed to get checked. For example:
Journalists at major newspapers which have fact-checkers.
Scientists in published papers and books about their area of expertise.
Also, a person counts as a reliable primary source about themselves for some statements ("I can't swim") but not others ("I did not steal that money").
As it happens, some of the senior people at Wikipedia are trying to combine our existing rules about what we can put in our articles into a new policy, Wikipedia:Attribution. Unfortunately, that means all the documents are being edited several times a day just now, which makes it hard to learn this stuff!
Probably the best way to start is to read Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ, then Wikipedia:Attribution
BTW, the standard way to "sign" messages around here is to type "~~~~" at the end of the message. The software will turn it into your signature (usually your username, but you can change that in "my preferences") followed by the date or time. That's how I'll sign this message: CWC 16:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How many "authoritative sources" are there for replacing the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) with a SYSTEM of juctice? Edward Williams 15:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand that question. Remember that Wikipedia is about documented and describing the way things are, not the way things should be.
Wikipedia is probably not the right place to work directly against racism or for justice. What Wikipedia can do is fairly, accurately and dispassionately report what various White Supremacists believe, or at least preach, and the things they've said and done ... which turns out to be a really good way to discredit them. But some of the racists edit Wikipedia as well, and the rules here require us to be polite to them. If that's not the sort of thing you like doing, perhaps you should look for another website or group to work with? (In addition to Wikipedia, of course.) Cheers, CWC 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I'll rephrase the question. What person is an "authoritative source" on material on replacing the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) with a SYSTEM of juctice? Edward Williams 10:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

_________________What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?

You're running up against one of the things about Wikipedia that surprises (and disappoints!) many people: Wikipedia does not try to tell the truth, it only tries to report what verifiable, authoritative sources say, in a neutral way, avoiding \"original research\". For more details, see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia.

Very interesting.

Is this statement in response to you trying to post a definition of counter racism?

It would also be interesting to get a definition of "original research".

Joined: 12 Apr 2003Posts: 3079Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: Re:

Josh wrote:

You're running up against one of the things about Wikipedia that surprises (and disappoints!) many people: Wikipedia does not try to tell the truth, it only tries to report what verifiable, authoritative sources say, in a neutral way, avoiding \\\"original research\\\". For more details, see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia.

Very interesting.

Is this statement in response to you trying to post a definition of counter racism?

No sir. I posted additional “verifiable work from an authoritative source in a neutral way avoiding original research” relating to “racism” under a paragraph heading “Counter-Racism Science”.

Josh wrote:

It would also be interesting to get a definition of \"original research\".

Research has to originate somewhere doesn't it?

Josh

Yes sir._________________What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?